Demographic Diversity in The Boardroom

Journal of Management Studies 46:5 July 2009
0022-2380
Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom: Mediators

of the Board Diversity–Firm Performance Relationship
Toyah Miller and María del Carmen Triana

University of Oklahoma; University of Wisconsin–Madison
abstract Whereas the majority of research on board diversity explores the direct
relationship between racial and gender diversity and firm performance, this paper investigates
mediators that explain how board diversity is related to firm performance. Grounded in
signalling theory and the behavioural theory of the firm, we suggest that this relationship
operates through two mediators: firm reputation and innovation. In a sample of Fortune 500
firms, we find a positive relationship between board racial diversity and both firm reputation
and innovation. We find that reputation and innovation both partially mediate the relationship
between board racial diversity and firm performance. In addition, we find a positive
relationship between board gender diversity and innovation. joms_839 755..786
INTRODUCTION
Women and racial minorities continue to make strides into the boardroom where,
according to the Alliance for Board Diversity (2005), 14.9 per cent of directors in the
Fortune 100 companies are from minority racial groups. The 2007 Catalyst census reports
that women hold 14.8 per cent of the Fortune 500 board seats, a 5.2 per cent increase since
1995 (Catalyst, 2008). In addition, while there were no African-American directors on
Fortune 500 boards in 1960, there were over 150 African-American directors by 1995,
and 260 directors by 2005 (Executive Leadership Council, 2006). The number of
Hispanic directors also increased to 3.1 per cent of Fortune 500 board seats in 2006, a 26
per cent increase since 2003 (Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility, 2007).
Many firms from Bank of America to Sara Lee are also beginning to assert that board
diversity leads to higher firm performance (Brancato, 1999; Carter et al., 2003; Mattis,
2000), and scholars have begun to explore the relationship between board diversity and
firm performance. Several researchers investigating this question have found that both
racial and gender diversity in the boardroom positively influence firm performance
(Carter et al., 2003; Erhardt et al., 2003). However, other studies have reported contra-
dictory findings, with Shrader et al. (1997) finding a negative relationship between the
Address for reprints: Toyah Miller, Department of Management, University of Oklahoma, 307 West Brooks,
Norman, OK 73071, USA (TLMiller@ou.edu).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
756 T. Miller and M. Triana
percentage of women on boards and firm performance, and both Dwyer et al. (2003) and
Dimovski and Brooks (2006) reporting no direct relationship between gender diversity
and firm performance.
Consequently, scholars have suggested that intervening, or mediating, variables
between diversity and performance must be examined to uncover when and how diver-
sity improves performance (Gabrielsson and Huse, 2004; Kochan et al., 2003; Miller
et al., 1998; Milliken and Martins, 1996). In fact, the Business Opportunities for Lead-
ership Diversity (BOLD) Project found few direct effects of race or gender diversity on
performance, which led the authors to suggest that intervening variables should be
explored in future research (Kochan et al., 2003). Therefore, we explore this question by
examining how board racial and gender diversity impact firm performance through two
mediating variables: innovation and reputation. We define innovation as strategies that
provide new opportunities for the firm to create products or services. Consistent with
previous research, we define reputation as an assessment of an organization’s quality or
esteem compared to other organizations (Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Fombrun, 1996).
We focus on innovation and reputation as the mediators in this paper because prior
research shows that both of these variables are important predictors of firm performance.
Research has both theorized and empirically found that innovation can lead to the
development of capabilities that improve firm performance (Caves and Ghemawat,
1992; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997; Zahra and Garvis, 2000). Reputation
has also been described as a valuable resource that allows firms to generate superior
financial performance (Black et al., 2000; Gregory, 1998; Hall, 1993; Knight and Pretty,
1999; Roberts and Dowling, 2002). In the following sections, we present our arguments
for why board racial and gender diversity should influence both innovation and repu-
tation, and ultimately firm performance.
The study makes several contributions to the corporate governance and diversity
literatures. First, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the corporate governance
literature by analysing board diversity within the framework of two major theories: the
behavioural theory of the firm (Cyert and March, 1963) and signalling theory ( Certo,
2003; Deutsch and Ross, 2003; Johnson et al., 1996; Waddock, 2000). Diverse human
capital on boards influences the strategic direction of the firm by providing cognitive
conflict which may result in innovative ideas (Amason, 1996; Hillman et al., 2002;
Rindova, 1999). The behavioural theory of the firm suggests that the more comprehen-
sive the information available and evaluated during the decision-making process is, the
more innovative a group’s decision will be (Cyert and March, 1963). Thus, we rely on the
behavioural theory of the firm to explain the connection between board racial and
gender diversity and innovation.
Signalling theory, on the other hand, posits that firms use visible signals to gain
reputation and status among the public. In previous literature, both the characteristics
of board members and the composition of the board itself have been shown to signal
the quality of the firm to the public, influencing firm reputation (Certo, 2003; Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1978). Because diverse boards may signal adherence to social laws and
values, as well as the ability to understand diverse stakeholders and markets in which
the firm does business, we propose that racial and gender diversity are related to firm
performance.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom 757
This paper also makes a theoretical contribution to the diversity and governance
literature by providing a better understanding of how the relationships between board
gender and racial diversity and firm performance operate. As previously mentioned,
studies analysing the relationship between diversity and firm performance have pro-
duced mixed results. As such, it is important to probe the intervening variables in the
relationship between board diversity and firm performance because this relationship
may be ‘complex and indirect’ (Forbes and Milliken, 1999, p. 490). Therefore, this study
extends the literature by providing evidence of two intervening variables: innovation and
reputation.
Finally, this study advances our understanding of board racial and gender diversity at
the highest ranks of leadership in firms. Scarce attention has been given to diversity topics
in the strategic management literature (Dwyer et al., 2003). In fact, Bilimoria (2000) calls
for more research into the relationship between the presence of women in the board-
room and firm reputation to understand how women directors may enhance firm
reputation. This study explores the effects of diversity at the top of the managerial ranks
in order to understand its implications and contribute to an undeservedly ignored body
of literature.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. We begin by describing the gover-
nance function, providing a context for evaluating the effects of board diversity. We next
discuss innovation and reputation-building in the context of board diversity. Following
this, measures, statistical analyses, and results are presented. Finally, we discuss the
contributions, limitations, and conclusions of this research.
GOVERNANCE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Daily et al. (2003) define governance as the determination of the resource deployment
and conflict resolution among the diverse interests of organizational stakeholders. While
a number of studies have focused on the monitoring and controlling role of boards
(Baysinger and Hoskisson, 1990; Kesner, 1987; Lane et al., 1998; Pearce and Zahra,
1992), another primary role of the board of directors is to provide resources to the firm
( Hillman and Dalziel, 2003; Johnson et al., 1996; Mizruchi, 1996; Parker, 2007; Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1978; Ruigrok et al., 2006). Hillman and Dalziel (2003) suggest that
directors act as boundary spanners in the environment, securing resources for the
organization and providing strategic advice that aids in firm survival and performance.
Directors, then, reduce uncertainty for the firm by connecting the firm to the outside
community and bringing information, skills, and legitimacy to the firm (Hillman et al.,
2000). While some doubt the influence of directors on strategic actions of the firm
(Henke, 1983; Melcher, 1996), more recent research published both in the United States
and the United Kingdom has linked the board of directors to firm strategic actions
(Beekes et al., 2004; Chatterjee et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 1996; Rindova, 1999; Stiles,
2001). Prior research has also established a link between the board of directors and firm
performance (Dalton et al., 1998; Hill and Snell, 1988; Kesner, 1987; Pearce and Zahra,
1992).
However, what has not been well established is how and why the board of directors
influences the firm. Some researchers have explored the role that board heterogeneity

plays in influencing innovation and signalling firm quality to the public (Baysinger et al.,
1991; Certo, 2003; Deutsch and Ross, 2003; Deutsch, 2005; Hill and Snell, 1988).
Others have focused on understanding how board characteristics and diversity influence
firm performance and other economic outcomes (Carter et al., 2003; Dalton et al., 1998;
Erhardt et al., 2003; Lane et al., 1998; Pearce and Zahra, 1992). Yet, no research to date
has investigated the effect of gender and racial diversity of the board on firm perfor-
mance through the mediators, innovation and reputation.
Blau (1977, p. 276) defined diversity as ‘the great number of different statuses among
which a population is distributed’. Because ‘race and gender are often considered proxies
of different perspectives individuals bring to organizations’ (Hillman et al., 2002, p. 749),
the human capital on demographically diverse boards should result in divergent and
unique views and backgrounds brought to the firm. Supporting this perspective, Hillman
et al. (2002) found demographic characteristics of directors may influence strategic
choices of the firm because there are differences in human and social capital among
directors of different races and genders.
In this paper we focus on race and gender diversity for two specific reasons. First,
recent legislation and diversity efforts worldwide have drawn more attention to the
importance of female representation on boards of directors. Women are under-
represented not only on Fortune 500 boards in the United States, but also on the FTSE
100 boards in the United Kingdom (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2003, 2004; Singh et al.,
2008) and in other countries as well. For example, in Norway the government is now
requiring companies to appoint women to their corporate boards to achieve 40 per cent
females within the next three years, and Sweden has implemented similar legislation with
a target of 25 per cent female representation (Hoel, 2004; Singh and Vinnicombe, 2006).
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 in the United States, legislation that calls for more
independence of the members on boards, has been heralded as an opportunity for more
females to become directors. This is a potential opportunity for women to gain seats on
boards, because the majority of females on boards are outside directors (Dalton et al.,
2006). These diversity initiatives demonstrate the importance and timeliness of studying
diversity on boards. Second, we focus on racial and gender diversity because these are
topics of practical importance to companies today. There are growing numbers of
women in top management positions today, with the pipeline for women CEOs and
directors expected to increase (Giscombe and Mattis, 2002; Helfat et al., 2006). In
addition, racial minorities now make up the majority of the US population within 18 of
the largest 25 markets where most business transactions take place (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2005; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2007). Because of this diverse working environment,
92 per cent of companies in the USA report efforts targeted at gender diversity, and 90
per cent report efforts targeted at racial diversity (Catalyst, 2006b). Therefore, companies
operate in a very diverse environment today, and they expend a good deal of effort trying
to attract and manage that diversity.
While our focus is on both gender and racial diversity, we must acknowledge that there
are both similarities and differences between these two types of diversity. Some similari-
ties that are shared between female and minority directors are that they are both more
likely to have backgrounds outside the business arena, to have higher-level educational
degrees, and to more quickly become a member of other boards compared to male

directors (Hillman et al., 2002). Both gender and race are highly visible types of diversity
that may send signals to the public (Tsui et al., 1992) and both racial minorities and
females are traditionally underrepresented on boards (Alliance for Board Diversity,
2005; Catalyst, 2006a).
However, research suggests that the perception of human and social capital benefits
may differ between gender and racially diverse boards. For example, Ibarra (1995)
found that racial status has a stronger effect on the perceived utility of career and task
related networks than gender, indicating that minority networks are perceived to be
more diverse and beneficial to firms than those of women. Differences between racial
and gender diversity can also be found in the types of information that they are per-
ceived to provide. For example, researchers have noted that racial/cultural diversity is
a critical resource for a firm to understand its culturally diverse customer base
(Richard, 2000) and shape corporate strategy in a particular market context (Amason,
1996).
In this paper we are primarily concerned with the mediating roles of innovation and
reputation within the board demographic diversity–firm performance relationship. Our
perspective is consistent with the ‘value in diversity’ hypothesis (Cox et al., 1991) which
maintains that a key advantage to team diversity is that diverse groups should provide a
broader range of knowledge, information and perspectives compared to homogeneous
groups. Consistent with others who have stated that it is imperative for researchers to
uncover the processes that link diversity to performance (Lawrence, 1997), in the next
sections we build arguments supporting the role of innovation and reputation as media-
tors between board racial and gender diversity and firm performance.
BOARD DIVERSITY AND INNOVATION

Corporate innovation strategies are defined as those strategies that provide new strategic
opportunities for the firm to create new services or product lines. Innovation has become
one of the key strategies of the firm for gaining competitive advantage (Hitt et al., 1996),
expanding market share (Franko, 1989) and increasing firm performance (Morbey,
1988). Because innovation is vital to a firm, researchers have increasingly examined
the relationship between governance and innovation strategies (Baysinger et al., 1991;
Graves, 1988; Hansen and Hill, 1991; Hill and Snell, 1988; Hitt et al., 1996; Zahra,
1996). Baysinger et al. (1991), for example, established that board structure influences
corporate innovation by aligning incentives of ownership for directors. Theoretically,
directors on the board are challenged with the task of allocating resources and providing
ideas and relationships that increase the innovation of the firm. Board diversity provides
strategic human and social capital resources to firms which influence these efforts,
thereby increasing innovation.
There is also reason to believe that the demography of top leadership teams should
influence firm innovation. For example, Bantel and Jackson (1989) suggested that func-
tional and educational diversity on the executive team increases the team’s creativity and
innovation due to the diverse human capital of top management. When elites make
decisions, they are influenced by their past experiences (Cyert and March, 1963) and
demographic characteristics (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Robinson and Dechant

(1997) suggest that attitudes, cognitive functions, and beliefs are not randomly distributed
in the population, but tend to vary systematically with demographic variables, such as
age, race, and gender. Thus, scholars posit that racial diversity increases the number of
ideas, promotes creativity, and leads to increased innovation (Cox, 1996). In other words,
the knowledge embodied in a firm’s human and social capital can be a competitive
advantage through identification of opportunities for innovation.
Support for the idea that board racial and gender diversity should be related to firm
innovation may also be found in the behavioural theory of the firm (Cyert and March,
1963). The behavioural theory of the firm posits that the extensiveness of the search and
decision making processes can influence innovation in organizations. Decisions can be
biased by the information within the decision making group, especially when the search
process is conducted by a homogeneous group that focuses only on areas in which group
members have previous experience (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). For example, boards
advise and identify which businesses to enter and acquire, and the less information they
have on the attractiveness of the market, the more innovation is perceived as a risk.
Homogeneous groups may actually hamper innovation because high levels of cohesion
produce pressures towards conformity.
Heterogeneous groups, on the other hand, should produce a broader range of ideas
and information because they contain a diverse body of knowledge (Milliken and
Vollrath, 1991). Unique ideas and perspectives impact the identification, development
and selection of decisions (Mintzberg et al., 1976). In the identification phase, both racial
and gender diversity on the board help identify new innovative opportunities. Diverse
groups also have a greater variety of ideas and perspectives presented to search for and
design solutions in the development stage. This implies that racial and gender diversity
allows for a more thorough evaluation of choices in the selection stage because of the
increased information available. Empirical research on group decision-making has sup-
ported this assertion, showing that heterogeneous groups produce higher quality deci-
sions than homogeneous groups on complex tasks (Amason, 1996; Hoffman, 1959;
Hoffman and Maier, 1961) and generate more innovative solutions than homogeneous
groups through cognitive conflict (Amason, 1996; Chen et al., 2005). On the board, this
often occurs as directors are able to provide divergent perspectives. These findings are
consistent with the behavioural theory of the firm because the breadth of information
associated with team heterogeneity is related to innovation.
However, it is not only human capital that is provided by racial and gender diversity.
Demographic diversity has also been linked with differences in social capital and network
resources. Social capital is the sum of social resources embedded in a social relationship,
yielding benefits of referral, timing, and information (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988). Burt
(1992) suggested the value of diversity of ties, asserting that greater information is
received by forming links with individuals outside the immediate network. When firms
have diverse ties, they are better able to innovate (Burt, 1997; Granovetter, 1973;
Robertson et al., 1996). Firms that have these non-redundant ties engage in interactions
which help executives overcome decision biases and improve the quality of decisions
(Daft and Lengel, 1984; O’Reilly, 1983). Rodan and Galunic (2004), for example, found
that heterogeneous managerial knowledge from network structures positively impacts
innovation.

Innovation
Board Diversity
• Gender Diversity Firm Performance
• Racial Diversity
Firm
Reputation
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Coincidentally, the social networks of females and minorities also tend to be more
diverse than those of white males (Ibarra, 1992, 1993). Because women and minorities
must maintain multiple networks in order to obtain their career and social resources
(Ibarra, 1992, 1993), they maintain a broad range of contacts and are more likely to
maintain weak ties. These weak ties, in turn, are known to be valuable because they pro-
vide non-redundant information that can be critical to the firm’s success (Granovetter,
1973). As such, the information from females and minorities can be a pivotal source of
information which supports innovative activity. Again, this is consistent with the behav-
ioural theory of the firm because the diversity of information provided from the networks
of females and minorities is expected to lead to innovation. Therefore, we expect a
positive relationship between board diversity and firm innovation. Figure 1 represents
the relationship between board gender and racial diversity and innovation.
Hypothesis 1a: Board gender diversity is positively related to firm innovation.
Hypothesis 1b: Board racial diversity is positively related to firm innovation.
BOARD DIVERSITY AND FIRM REPUTATION

Reputation is ‘a perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future
prospects that describe the firm’s overall appeal to all its key constituents’ (Fombrun, 1996, p. 72).
Consistent with this definition and that of others (Deephouse and Carter, 2005;
Lawrence, 1998), we define reputation as an assessment of a firm’s quality or esteem
compared to other organizations. It is helpful to distinguish between reputation and
legitimacy here. While legitimacy describes social acceptance stemming from adherence
to a social system’s norms, values and rules (Hirsch and Andrews, 1984; Parsons, 1960),
reputation involves an assessment of a company’s relative status and quality compared to
other companies (Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Fombrun, 1996; Lawrence, 1998).

These two terms are clearly related. For example, firms that are perceived as being
legitimate may be more likely to have good reputations. For the purposes of this paper,
we rely on Deephouse and Carter’s (2005) conclusion that the difference between
legitimacy and reputation is that reputation requires a social comparison across compa-
nies in order to determine the relative degree of status and prestige that one company
possesses. In this paper we focus on the mediating effect of reputation and not legitimacy
because we are interested in how board racial and gender diversity can have reputation
effects across companies.
Research has demonstrated that, due to information asymmetries, the public often
uses both actions and symbols to judge a firm’s reputation and quality (Ferrier, 1997;
Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Spence, 1973). These signals are pieces of information
made available by the firm to influence investors, employees, and other stakeholders,
which are then used by the public to judge the firm’s capabilities (Ferrier, 1997; Fombrun
and Shanley, 1990; Mahon, 2002). A connection between the characteristics of the board
of directors and public actions has been demonstrated in previous research on pre-IPO
firms. In particular, the make-up of the board of directors can function as a signal to
investors about the robustness of the governance mechanisms in place and the quality of
the firm (Beatty and Ritter, 1986; Fama and Jensen, 1983). For example, Certo et al.
(2001) found that whether or not the CEO was also the founder of the company had a
positive impact on IPO underpricing. Filatotchev and Bishop (2002) also found a link
between certain board characteristics and IPO underpricing in a sample of IPOs in the
United Kingdom. With regard to diversity, previous studies have found that a firm’s
commitment to diversity is an informational signal used to compare firms (Albinger and
Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et al., 2002). Backhaus et al. (2002, p. 298) write that diversity
issues are ‘salient messages about life in the firm’, and thus, a firm’s stance on diversity
issues may influence firm reputation (Turban and Greening, 1997).
Consistent with previous research which uses signalling theory to show how charac-
teristics of the board influence organizational reputation (Certo, 2003; Certo et al.,
2001), we believe that women and minority directors serve as a signal to the public. In
addition, many firms use corporate governance to signal the attractiveness of the firm
and bolster firm reputation (Certo, 2003; Deutsch and Ross, 2003; Johnson et al., 1996;
Waddock, 2000). Supporting this view, Bazerman and Schoorman (1983, p. 211) stated,
‘An organization’s reputation can be affected by who serves on the board of directors and
[with] whom the organization is seen to be linked.’ With stockholders able to easily attain
information about the firm and who manages it, public visibility of the firm is a driving
force towards signalling board diversity. In fact, Bilimoria (2000) noted that the presence
of women corporate directors influenced how corporate effectiveness was viewed by the
media and the public. In particular, we argue that there are three ways in which diverse
directors can enhance firm reputation through signalling.
First, having a gender and racially diverse board signals that the firm is well-
positioned to meet the needs of a diverse market. As firms increasingly operate within
a global economy, having a diverse board of directors may signal that the board will be
able to understand the business environment and advise the firm executives effectively.
Gender and racially diverse boards serve as symbols to the public because firms desire
to emulate their stakeholder population, labour force, and management (Fondas, 2000).

As firms communicate with stakeholders, diverse boards can shape how the firm is
perceived and signal the firm’s dedication to creating social value (Dowling, 2006;
Mahon, 2002). Consequently, many companies are now embracing diversity in lead-
ership as a way to reflect the perspectives of diverse cultures in new markets and align
themselves with key stakeholders (Rindova, 1999). For example, Carter (2006) found
that certain compositions of top management teams lead to increased ability to reflect
stakeholder interests. Through the benefits of board diversity, such as more effective
interaction in diverse product and labour markets (Burke, 2000), firm reputation is
enhanced. Second, diverse boards should influence firm reputation because gender and
racial diversity on boards signals norm adherence and positive working conditions
(Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Turban and Greening, 1997). For instance, van der
Walt and Ingley (2003) noted that women on the board add value by serving as role
models both inside and outside the organization, indicating the acceptance of diversity
and that women are upwardly mobile (Bilimoria, 2000; Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000;
Mattis, 2000). Daily and Dalton (2003, p. 9) further suggest that ‘women in strategic
decision-making positions communicate that an organization is committed to advance-
ment of women at all levels’. In the United States, diversity has become a culturally
accepted norm, prompting many companies to signal adherence to these norms of
diversity (Fondas, 2000). Organizations that work within the practices and rules of the
environment will gain legitimacy, and ultimately, reputation. For example, Staw and
Epstein (2000) showed that information and implementation of popular management
techniques affect corporate reputation. In the same way, board diversity reflects a signal
of adherence to a cultural norm, and thus boosts a firm’s reputation. van der Walt and
Ingley (2003) acknowledged that many companies do not want to be seen as discrimi-
natory, and therefore comply with diversity norms, which gives them a sense of cred-
ibility and integrity in the eyes of their constituents (Fondas, 2000; Mattis, 2000). Thus,
diverse boards serve as a signal to the public of representation, norm adherence, and
support for minorities and women.
Third, females and minorities on the board of directors can improve a firm’s reputa-
tion through reputation-building activities such as philanthropy and community out-
reach (Fombrun, 2004). These charitable giving and philanthropic activities improve the
firm’s image and reputation, acting as a signal to stakeholders (Brammer and Millington,
2005). Researchers have noted that the growing numbers of women and racial minority
directors on boards have led to increased attention to social responsibility, charitable
giving, and community relationships (Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998; Wang and Coffey,
1992; Williams, 2003). For example, Stanwick and Stanwick (1998) reported that female
directors have greater orientation towards charitable giving than their male counter-
parts. Wang and Coffey (1992) similarly found a positive relationship between women
and minority directors and corporate philanthropy. Hillman et al. (2002) found that
African-American and female directors, in particular, are more likely to be influential in
society, which results in linkages with the community. Directors influence the reputation
and public image of firms through bridging firms to outside organizations (Hillman et al.,
2002). The capability to communicate with diverse stakeholders and present the point of
view of the organization and external groups are key reputation-building activities
(Heugens et al., 2004; Hill and Jones, 1992). This social capital helps broaden the

organization’s appeal and reputation because philanthropy and community relations are
key reputation-building activities (Pfeffer, 1981). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2a: Board gender diversity is positively related to firm reputation.
Hypothesis 2b: Board racial diversity is positively related to firm reputation.
MEDIATION OF THE BOARD DIVERSITY–FIRM PERFORMANCE

RELATIONSHIP
Previous studies establish the positive relationship between demographic diversity on the
board and firm performance (Bilimoria, 2006; Burke, 2000; Carter et al., 2003; Erhardt
et al., 2003), yet few studies empirically show how this process occurs. For example,
Carter et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between the fraction of women on the
board and market value of the firm. Other researchers have also reported significant
relationships between board diversity and accounting performance of the firm (Erhardt
et al., 2003). Of great importance to governance researchers, however, is an understand-
ing of how diversity positively affects firm performance by investigating intervening
processes (Forbes and Milliken, 1999). Because mediation reveals how and why one
variable affects another, it has taken a special place in organizational sciences (Baron and
Kenny, 1986).
We believe that innovation functions as a mediating variable which transmits the effect
of diversity to firm performance. Our model suggests a positive relationship between
board diversity and innovation in Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Increasing diversity on the
board leads to more varied ideas, perspectives, and networks which, in turn, increase
innovation. Furthermore, prior research shows that innovation is positively associated
with firm performance (Caves and Ghemawat, 1992; Nelson and Winter, 1982). There-
fore, innovation should mediate the relationship between board diversity and firm
performance.
Hypothesis 3a: Innovation mediates the relationship between gender diversity on the
board and firm performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Innovation mediates the relationship between racial diversity on the
board and firm performance.
In addition, reputation is an important mediator in understanding how women and

minorities on the board increase firm performance. In the above section, we argue that
board diversity is positively related to firm reputation (Hypotheses 2a and 2b). Daily and
Dalton (2003, p. 9) have discussed the link between board demographic diversity and
firm performance by noting that ‘the signalling power of the initiative, including women
and racial minorities on corporate boards, is positively associated with stock returns’.
Furthermore, previous research demonstrates the positive effect of reputation on firm
performance from various management, strategy, and human resource perspectives
(Black et al., 2000; Gregory, 1998). Firm reputation is a resource that can be valuable

and rare, allowing a firm to gain a strategic advantage and increase firm performance
(Gregory, 1998; Hall, 1993; Knight and Pretty, 1999; Roberts and Dowling, 2002).
Therefore, we hypothesize that firm reputation mediates the relationship between board
diversity and firm performance.
Hypothesis 3c: Firm reputation mediates the relationship between the gender diversity
on the board and firm performance.
Hypothesis 3d: Firm reputation mediates the relationship between the racial diversity
on the board and firm performance.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
Using demographic data on Fortune 500 firms, this research study explores the empirical
linkages of board diversity, reputation, innovation, and performance. We chose Fortune
500 firms because these firms represent leaders in their industry and several external
reports listing the race of board members have been conducted on this sample, thereby
providing a way to validate our data. In order to be included in the sample, there were
several requirements: firms had to be continuously listed in COMPUSTAT without
being acquired by another company, be publically traded and active between 2002 and
2005, and within the Fortune 500 for 2003. These criteria resulted in 432 firms which are
used to investigate innovation as a mediator between board diversity and firm perfor-
mance. Then, these firms were matched with those in the 2004 Fortune Reputation
Survey for 2003, which ranks the top 10 firms in each industry from Fortune 1000 firms.
This matching process resulted in a sample of 326 firms, and this sample is used to
investigate reputation as a mediator between board diversity and firm performance.
There were no significant differences between the Fortune 500 firms that were in our
sample and those that were not in our sample in terms of firm performance or industry.
Financial performance and innovation data were gathered through COMPUSTAT.
Independent Variables
Board diversity. In our study, we measure board diversity using two measures. First, we
define diversity as the degree of heterogeneity among board members with respect to
race or gender, using Blau’s index (1977). As a second measure, we use the proportion of
women and racial minorities within each board of directors. Data on gender and race
were gathered from the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC) for 2002. In
2002, there were 4387 Caucasian (89.3 per cent), 368 African-American (7.5 per cent),
113 Hispanic (2.3 per cent), and 44 Asian (0.9 per cent) directors in our sample of 432
firms. Six hundred and forty-three (13.1 per cent) directors were women. While 12 per
cent of firms in our sample had no women directors, 44.0 per cent had 1 woman director,
32.2 per cent had 2 women directors, and 11.8 per cent had 3 or more women directors.
To validate the IRRC data and fill in missing values on race, we used several external
data sources[1] from organizations that survey the race of directors on Fortune 500 boards.

Blau’s index has been suggested as an optimal measure of diversity to capture varia-
tions within a group of people (Harrison and Klein, 2007). It is also an ideal measure of
diversity, because it meets the four criteria that have been laid out for a good measure of
diversity: it has a zero point to represent complete homogeneity, larger numbers indicate
greater diversity, the index does not assume negative values, and the index is not
unbounded (Harrison and Sin, 2006). In addition, Blau’s index has been frequently used
and noted as a suitable measure of diversity for categorical variables, where the measure
is not skewed in a proportion of any one category (i.e. gender or race) (Bantel and
Jackson, 1989; Harrison and Sin, 2006).
Therefore, board gender diversity and board racial diversity are measured using Blau’s (1977)
index of heterogeneity (1 - Sr2), where r is the proportion of group members in each of
the number of categories. IRRC categorizes the race of board members into four
categories: Asian, Black, Hispanic, or White. All four categories were used to calculate
Blau’s index. The range of the index is dependent upon the number of categories, where
the number ranges from 0 to ( - 1)/. Therefore, board racial diversity can range from
0 when only one race is represented on the board to 0.75 when there are equal numbers
of all four races represented on the board. For board gender diversity, Blau’s index can
range from 0 when there is only one gender on the board to 0.50 when there are equal
numbers of men and women on the board.
In addition, board gender diversity and board racial diversity are measured using the pro-
portion of racial minorities or women to total directors. In the proportional measure of
board racial diversity, all categories except Caucasian were designated as racial minori-
ties to calculate racial diversity.
Innovation. Because we investigate the effects of board diversity on firm innovation,

research and development (R&D) expenses are used as a proxy for innovation. We
believe this reflects decisions made by directors to allocate resources to innovation, and
previous literature has established that a firm’s R&D intensity is an appropriate proxy
for the firm’s innovation (Balkin et al., 2000; Hitt et al., 1997; Hoskisson et al., 2002;
O’Brien, 2003). Consistent with this research, innovation is measured by research and
development (R&D) intensity, and we operationalize this as a firm’s reported R&D
expenditures divided by sales.
However, a firm’s innovativeness ‘will manifest itself not in the absolute magnitude of
R&D intensity, but rather in the firm’s R&D intensity relative to industry rivals’
(O’Brien, 2003, p. 422). Thus, adjusting for the effect of industry is also important
(Heeley et al., 2006). Therefore, we subtract the industry average R&D expenditures
from firm R&D expenditures, using data in COMPUSTAT, recorded in millions of
dollars in 2003. Then, this value is divided by net sales in millions of dollars in 2003 to
control for the effects of firm size in R&D expenditures that influence its outcomes
(Balkin et al., 2000; Hitt et al., 1997) and to avoid ‘problems of an artificial relationship
with firm size’ (Hitt et al., 1997, p. 778).
When R&D was missing, the values were first searched for in Compact D. Five missing
values were gathered. Because firms are required to report R&D expenses, missing
values indicate negligible expenditures. Thus, following previous research, missing
R&D values were set equal to zero (Henderson et al., 2006; O’Brien, 2003; Opler et al.,

1999). This method avoids biasing results by excluding firms with small R&D expendi-
tures (Himmelberg et al., 1999; O’Brien, 2003).
Firm reputation. Firm reputation scores were obtained from the 2004 Fortune Corporate
Reputation Survey, which covers firms for the year 2003. Fortune’s most admired com-
panies survey is one of the best known indices of reputation and has been used extensively
in reputation research (Black et al., 2000; Fombrun, 1996). Executives rate companies in
their own industries on a scale from poor (0) to excellent (10) based on eight attributes of
performance: quality of management; quality of products; perceptions of innovativeness;
long-term investment value; financial soundness; ability to attract, develop, and keep
people; responsibility to the community and environment; and wise use of corporate
resources.
Research has shown that prior financial performance explains approximately half of
the variance in Fortune’s reputation index because reputation is confounded by raters’
forecasts of financial performance, resulting in an inability to truly distinguish reputation
from financial performance (Brown and Perry, 1994; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;
McGuire et al., 1990; Roberts and Dowling, 2002). This ‘financial halo effect’ presents
a bias in reputation studies, creating a ‘blurring of distinctions among dimensions or
attributes due to a strong overall impression’ (Brown and Perry, 1994, p. 1349). There-
fore, prior financial performance may be used to partial out its effects on reputation by
regressing performance measures on reputation and using the residual value as halo-
removed reputation. In other words, the residual is that which is unexplained by prior
financial performance (Brown and Perry, 1994; Roberts and Dowling, 2002). Therefore,
we follow the Roberts and Dowling (2002) method for removing the financial halo by
regressing reputation in 2003 on firm performance (return on sales and return on
investment) in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The predicted value in the equation is the
financial halo or financial reputation, and the residual value is the halo-removed or
residual reputation, which is our measure of firm reputation (Brown and Perry, 1994;
Roberts and Dowling, 2002).
Dependent Variable
Firm performance. Firm performance was operationalized as accounting-based perfor-
mance using two measures from COMPUSTAT: return on investment (ROI, measured
as net income divided by invested capital) and return on sales (ROS, measured as net
income divided by net sales) for 2005. ROI was chosen because it has been suggested to
be the most comprehensive measure of firm performance (Woo and Willard, 1983), and
it is frequently used in governance research (Boyd, 1995; Daily et al., 2000; Rechner and
Dalton, 1991) and studies on board diversity (Erhardt et al., 2003; Fryxell and Lerner,
1989; Shrader et al., 1997). ROS is used as a measure of competitive advantage that
avoids biases in accounting method and as a perceptible measure of firm performance
which directors and managers are likely to drive towards in large firms (Audia et al.,
2000; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Shrader et al., 1997). Following Staw and
Epstein (2000), we then standardized both the ROI and ROS measures, creating an
average overall firm performance measure. Firm performance is measured in 2005,

lagged two years to allow time for mediating effects of reputation and innovation to
occur. This lag is within the range of time whereby returns from R&D may be translated
into gains (Pakes and Schankerman, 1984).
Control Variables
We controlled for the following variables as suggested by an extensive literature review:
firm age, liquidity, firm size, and product diversification, international diversification,
and industry. In investigating the relationship between board diversity and firm reputa-
tion and the mediating effect of reputation in the relationship between board diversity
and firm performance (Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3c, and 3d), firm age (number of years since
incorporation) and size (the log of total employees) in 2002 are used as controls because
firms with more experience and resources in the market have better reputations (Brown
and Perry, 1994; Deephouse and Carter, 2005). Industry (measured as a 1-digit SIC code
following Carter et al., 2003) is also controlled for because previous studies suggest
reputation should be assessed relative to industry (Brammer and Millington, 2005;
Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Previous studies have shown that product diversification
explains some of the variance in reputation (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Therefore an
entropy measure of product diversification is controlled for, using business segment data
in 2002 from COMPUSTAT and measured as
N
Product Diversification = ∑ S j ln (1 S j ),
j =1
where Sj is the proportion of total sales in segment j and N is the total number of
segments in which the firm sells. In addition, programmes and initiatives that influence
reputation may be sensitive to the existence of liquidity or slack resources (Cyert and
March, 1963), so liquidity is used as a control (a ratio of current assets to current
liabilities in 2002).
Previous studies have found that product diversification is also related to innovation
(Baysinger et al., 1991; Hitt et al., 1997), and therefore it was used as a control in testing
the mediating effect of innovation in the board diversity-firm performance relationship
(Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 3a, and 3b). Other variables found to have an effect on innovation
are firm liquidity (Baysinger and Hoskisson, 1989), industry, and international diversifi-
cation, measured as the percentage of foreign sales of total sales in 2002 from Compact
D. Therefore, we controlled for these variables. Finally, following previous literature (Hill
and Snell, 1988; Hitt et al., 1997; Pearce and Zahra, 1992), firm size in 2002 and product
diversification in 2002 were used as controls in testing the relationship between board
ANALYSIS
The method used for analysis was ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. To test
Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which predict that diversity on the board is positively related to

innovation, we regressed innovation on the control variables and then board diversity in
sequential steps. To test Hypotheses 2a and 2b, that board diversity is positively related
to reputation, we regressed reputation on the control variables, and then board diversity
in sequential steps. To test Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d, which predicted the mediating
effects, we adhered to the procedure outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and
Kenny (1981).
RESULTS
Table I shows the means, standard deviations and correlations among the study vari-
ables. The average Blau and proportional racial diversity scores in our sample were 0.17
and 0.10 respectively where the highest possible Blau racial diversity score was 0.75 if the
board had equal numbers of each race on the board. The average Blau and proportional
gender diversity scores were 0.21 and 0.13 respectively where the highest possible Blau
score was 0.50. On average, boards appear to be more gender diverse than racially
diverse. Table I also revealed several significant correlations between variables. There is
a significant and positive correlation between gender and racial diversity and firm size,
which suggests that larger firms more often appoint women and minorities to the board.
Reputation is significantly and positively correlated with both board racial diversity
measures (p < 0.01) but neither board gender diversity measure (p > 0.10).[2] Innovation
is positively and significantly correlated with Blau’s board racial diversity measure
(p < 0.05) and marginally significantly correlated with both gender diversity measures
(p < 0.10). Both racial diversity measures are positively and significantly correlated to
firm performance (p < 0.05). There were no correlations between any variables in the
same model with a magnitude greater than 0.40, which suggests that multicollinearity
was not a problem. Also, multicollinearity diagnostics did not reveal any problems in the
regressions. Further analysis will investigate the support for each hypothesis.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b predict that board gender and racial diversity will be positively
related to innovation. Table II presents the results of the multiple regression. For board
gender diversity (Blau and proportional), the unstandardized coefficients in Models 2A
and 2B are positive and significant (0.040, p < 0.05; 0.049, p < 0.05 respectively), sup-
porting Hypothesis 1a. For board racial diversity (Blau and proportional), the unstand-
ardized coefficients in Models 3A and 3B are positive and significant (0.035, p < 0.05;
0.052, p < 0.05 respectively), supporting Hypothesis 1b.
Table III represents the regression models for testing Hypotheses 2a and 2b, which
argue that board diversity is positively related to reputation. Models 5A and 5B in
Table III show that the unstandardized coefficients for both the Blau and proportional
measures of board gender diversity are positive, but not significant (0.116, p > 0.10;
0.391, p > 0.10 respectively). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a is not supported. In Models 6A
and 6B, board racial diversity (Blau and proportional) measures have a significant and
positive relationship with firm reputation (0.864, p < 0.05; 1.421, p < 0.05 respectively).
Therefore, these results support Hypothesis 2b.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d posit mediation of the board diversity–firm perfor-
mance relationship. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), testing for mediation consists
of four critical steps. First, the independent variable must influence the dependent

770
Table I. Means, standard deviations, and pairwise correlationsa
Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Firm performance 0.00 0.72
2 Firm reputation 0.02 0.99 0.21***
3 Innovation 0.01 0.05 0.17*** -0.01
4 Racial diversity – Blau 0.17 0.14 0.11* 0.14** 0.10*
5 Racial diversity – 0.10 0.09 0.10* 0.15** 0.09† 0.99**
Proportion
6 Gender diversity – Blau 0.21 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.09† 0.31*** 0.31**
7 Gender diversity – 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.09† 0.30** 0.31*** 0.97**
Proportion
8 Firm size 1.47 0.47 0.02 0.14** 0.06 0.31** 0.31*** 0.17** 0.15**
9 International 24.79 21.65 0.06 0.07 0.33*** 0.03 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 0.11
diversification
T. Miller and M. Triana
10 Product diversification 0.32 0.44 0.05 0.09† 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.18*** 0.15*
11 Liquidity 1.44 0.75 0.15** 0.08 0.29*** -0.14** -0.14** -0.02 -0.02 -0.10* 0.19* 0.01
12 Firm age 56.13 46.21 0.06 0.2*** 0.02 0.12* 0.11† 0.10† 0.08 0.1† 0.08 0.15** -0.07
13 Industry 4.01 1.72 -0.05 -0.04 -0.11* -0.05 -0.05 0.05 0.05 0.13** -0.38*** -0.16** -0.01 -0.07
Notes: a N = 432 for all variables except firm reputation, firm age, and liquidity where N = 326.
† p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table II. Results of regression: innovation on gender and racial board diversity
Variables Innovation
Model 1 Model 2A Model 2B Model 3A Model 3B
Product diversification -0.006 -0.006 -0.006 -0.005 -0.005

(0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
Industry -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Firm size 0.008† 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.005
(0.004) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
Liquidity 0.016* 0.016*** 0.016*** 0.017*** 0.017***
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003)
International diversification 0.001* 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***
(0.000) (0.0001) (0.000) (0.0001) (0.000)
Board gender diversity – Blau 0.040*
(0.018)
Board gender diversity – Proportion 0.049*
(0.024)
Board racial diversity – Blau 0.035*
(0.016)
Board racial diversity – Proportion 0.052*
(0.025)
R2 0.145 0.154 0.153 0.155 0.153
Adjusted R2 0.135 0.142 0.141 0.143 0.141
F-test 14.431*** 12.933*** 12.794*** 12.974*** 12.839***
Notes: Unstandardized coefficients. Two-tailed tests reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

N = 432, † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
variable (Step 1). Second, the independent variable must influence the presumed media-
tor (Step 2). Third, the mediator must influence the dependent variable while controlling
for the independent variable (Step 3). Finally, a previously significant relationship
between the independent and dependent variables must be reduced in the presence of
the mediator (Step 4).
Hypothesis 3a posits that innovation mediates the relationship between board gender
diversity and firm performance. Models 8A and 8B in Table IV show that there is no
significant relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance using either
measure of diversity (Blau’s index or proportions). Step 1 of the Baron and Kenny (1986)
approach, which requires a significant relationship between the independent variable and
the dependent variable, was not supported. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not supported.
In Hypothesis 3b, innovation is posited to mediate the relationship between board
racial diversity and firm performance. Models 9A and 9B of Table IV show that both
Blau and proportional measures of board racial diversity are positively and significantly
related to firm performance (0.682, p < 0.01; 1.000, p < 0.05 respectively). The signifi-
cance of this effect fulfils Step 1 of Baron and Kenny’s approach. The relationship
between the independent variable, board racial diversity, and the mediator, innovation,

Table III. Results of regression: reputation on gender and racial board diversity
Variables Firm reputation
Product diversification 0.063 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.074

(0.118) (0.119) (0.119) (0.118) (0.118)
Industry -0.024 -0.024 -0.024 -0.018 -0.018
(0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032)
Firm size 0.290* 0.285* 0.278* 0.210† 0.209†
(0.116) (0.118) (0.118) (0.122) (0.121)
Firm age 0.004** 0.004** 0.004** 0.004** 0.004**
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Liquidity 0.138† 0.138† 0.138† 0.152* 0.152*
(0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076)
Board gender diversity – Blau 0.116
(0.497)
Board gender diversity – Proportion 0.391
(0.655)
Board racial diversity – Blau 0.864*
(0.428)
Board racial diversity – Proportion 1.421*
(0.673)
R2 0.065 0.066 0.067 0.077 0.078
Adjusted R2 0.051 0.048 0.049 0.060 0.061
F-test 4.484** 3.735** 3.789** 4.453*** 4.520***

N = 326, † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
was supported in Hypothesis 1b, satisfying Step 2 of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) proce-
dure. In Step 3, the effect of the predictor is controlled to evaluate the relationship
between the mediator and outcome variable. Models 10A and 10B show that when the
Blau and proportional measures of board racial diversity are in the model, the mediator,
innovation, is positively and significantly related to firm performance (1.839, p < 0.05;
1.869, p < 0.05 respectively). In Step 4, the predictor–outcome relationship should be
reduced when the mediator is controlled for (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Models 9A–10B
show that when innovation is added to the model, the effect of board racial diversity on
firm performance decreases, which means that innovation partially mediates that rela-
tionship (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was supported.
Hypothesis 3c held that reputation mediates the positive relationship between board
gender diversity and firm performance. A significant positive relationship between board
gender diversity and firm reputation was not found (Hypothesis 2a). Therefore, since the
second step of the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach was not met, Hypothesis 3c was
not supported.
Hypothesis 3d suggested that reputation mediates the relationship between board
racial diversity and firm performance. Again, a positive and significant relationship is

Table IV. Results of regression: innovation as mediator of board gender diversity–firm performance
relationship
Variables Firm performance
Model 7 Model 8A Model 8B Model 9A Model 9B Model 10A Model 10B
Product diversification 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.064 0.065 0.074 0.075

(0.082) (0.082) (0.035) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081) (0.081)
Industry -0.02 -0.020 -0.02 -0.014 -0.015 -0.011 -0.012
(0.021) (0.021) (-0.048) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021)
Firm size 0.049 0.043 0.043 -0.016 -0.01 -0.025 -0.02
(0.075) (0.076) (0.028) (0.079) (0.079) (0.078) (0.078)
Liquidity 0.153** 0.153** 0.153** 0.166** 0.165** 0.134** 0.133*
(0.05) (0.050) (0.148) (0.050) (0.05) (0.052) (0.052)
International -0.0004 -0.0004 -0.0004 -0.0003 -0.0003 -0.002 -0.002
diversification (0.002) (0.002) (-0.008) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Board gender diversity – 0.149
Blau (0.310)
Board gender diversity – 0.226
Proportion (0.027)
Board racial diversity – 0.682** 0.618*
Blau (0.261) (0.261)
Board racial diversity – 1.000* 0.904*
Proportion (0.416) (0.416)
Innovation 1.839* 1.869*
(0.809) (0.809)
R2 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.041 0.039 0.053 0.051
Adjusted R2 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.028 0.025 0.037 0.035
F-test 2.247* 1.907† 1.919 3.036** 2.856* 3.366** 3.235**

N = 432, † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
found between board racial diversity (Blau and proportional measures) and firm perfor-
mance in Models 12A and 12B of Table V (0.778, p < 0.05; 1.124, p < 0.05 respectively).
The positive relationship between the independent variable (board racial diversity) and
the mediator (reputation) was also supported in Hypothesis 2b. Next, firm performance
was regressed on the control variables, board racial diversity, and then reputation.
Models 13A and 13B of Table V show that reputation is a significant predictor of
performance when Blau and proportional measures of board racial diversity are con-
trolled (0.133, p < 0.01; 0.134, p < 0.01 respectively). In addition, Models 12A–13B
show that the inclusion of the mediator in the model causes the coefficient for board
racial diversity to decrease, which indicates that the relationship between board racial
diversity and firm performance is partially mediated by firm reputation (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). Therefore, these results support Hypothesis 3d.
It should be noted that the amount of variance explained of firm performance and
reputation in our study is conservative. However, in our analysis previous performance
was removed from reputation. Previous performance traditionally accounts for 42 per

Table V. Results of regression: reputation as a mediator of board racial diversity–firm performance
relationship
Variables Firm performance
Product diversification 0.027 0.035 0.036 0.026 0.026

(0.086) (0.086) (0.086) (0.084) (0.085)
Industry -0.027 -0.022 -0.022 -0.019 -0.020
(0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.023)
Firm size 0.033 -0.039 -0.031 -0.067 -0.059
(0.084) (0.089) (0.088) (0.088) (0.087)
Firm age 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.0001
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Liquidity 0.146** 0.158** 0.158** 0.138* 0.137*
(0.056) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055)
Board racial diversity – Blau 0.778* 0.663*
(0.311) (0.308)
Board racial diversity – Proportion 1.124* 0.934†
(0.490) (0.486)
Firm reputation 0.133** 0.134***
(0.040) (0.040)
R2 0.028 0.047 0.044 0.079 0.076
Adjusted R2 0.013 0.029 0.026 0.059 0.056
F-test 1.868 2.626* 2.453* 3.900*** 3.756**

N = 326, † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.00.
cent of the variance explained in reputation, with a number of studies reporting R2

around 35–55 per cent (Brown and Perry, 1994). Thus, taking this into account, we
believe the variance explained in our study is similar to other studies.
Finally, as a robustness check, reverse causality was investigated to see whether firm
performance could be mediating the relationship between board diversity and innova-
tion. New data were collected on the variables where reputation and innovation were the
dependent variables in year 2004, and performance was the mediator in year 2003. No
mediating relationship was found. In addition, management literature has established
innovation and reputation as predictors of firm performance, rather than the reverse
relationship; thus, we believe the possibility of reverse causality to be minimal.
DISCUSSION
We analysed a sample of Fortune 500 firms to examine the mediating roles of innovation
and reputation in the relationship between board gender and racial diversity and firm
performance. The theoretical basis for our hypotheses was drawn from the behavioural
theory of the firm and signalling theory. Results support the value in diversity hypothesis
by demonstrating that both board gender and racial diversity are positively related to

innovation (in the form of R&D expenditures). Furthermore, we found support for
innovation as a mediator between board racial diversity and firm performance. These
findings suggest that firms may benefit from the diverse human and social capital on
diverse boards which support an innovation strategy. This provides support for the
behavioural theory of the firm because racial and gender diversity (proxies for richness
of information in the decision-making process) are both related to innovation (Bilimoria,
2000; Hillman et al., 2002; Milliken and Vollrath, 1991).
In addition, we found a positive relationship between board racial diversity and firm
reputation. This finding is consistent with signalling theory which predicts that diverse
board members will increase firm reputation by signalling that the board members
are well equipped to understand the diverse environment in which the firm operates
(Bilimoria, 2000; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Fondas, 2000). In addition, we found that
reputation partially mediates the relationship between board racial diversity and firm
performance. However, the hypotheses pertaining to board gender diversity received
mixed support. While gender diversity was related to innovation, it was not related to
reputation. We offer three explanations for this.
First, females on boards may not hold positions of power in leadership or management
as often as males, and hence, may not be as visible a signal as minorities. In order for a
signal to be effective, it needs to be visible to the public because visibility influences the
amount of information provided to the public (Brammer and Millington, 2005; Ferrier,
1997; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). However, in some post hoc analyses of our data, we
noticed that females are less likely than racial minorities to be the chairperson of a major
committee or have management experience. In particular, descriptive statistics of our
data show that the average number of minority chairpersons on boards was 0.41 per
board while the average number of female chairpersons was 0.30. Even though the
females on the boards tended to have slightly longer tenure than the minorities, they
were less often the chairperson. This is consistent with other research, which shows that
female directors tend to hold less powerful positions than male directors (Dalton et al.,
2006; Kesner, 1988; Peterson and Philpot, 2007; Zelechowski and Bilimoria, 2001,
2004). If females are on the board of directors but do not serve as a chair of a committee,
they may be seen as having limited influence, thus sending a weaker signal. In addition,
in some post hoc analyses we found that while racial diversity was positively correlated
with executive-level management experience (0.213, p < 0.001), measured as the total
number of directors holding executive positions in a firm, gender diversity was not
positively correlated with executive-level management experience (-0.002, p > 0.10).
The public often looks for signals of director skills, and firms often publicize the past and
present positions of their directors in annual reports and proxy statements to send signals
of the quality of their directors. Thus, if gender diverse boards have less management
experience than racially diverse boards, this signal may be weakened. Therefore, one
reason that female directors may not affect reputation (while minorities do) is because
they are not as likely to occupy management and leadership roles that increase their
visibility to the public.
Another explanation for why gender diversity was not related to reputation is because
there is some evidence that female directors are less likely to be associated with causes
that enhance firm reputation. Although philanthropy is generally associated with firm

reputation (Brammer and Millington, 2005; Williams and Barrett, 2000), there is some
evidence that not all forms of philanthropy are equally effective in improving firm
reputation. We expected female directors to be related to philanthropy based on the
work of Coffey and Wang (1998) which found a positive relationship between the
percentage of women on the board and charitable giving. However, if female board
members are involved in forms of philanthropy that are not strongly related to firm
reputation, this may be one reason why board gender diversity was not related to
reputation in our sample. Williams (2003) found that while female directors are likely to
engage in philanthropic giving, they tend to give to causes that are not highly correlated
with firm reputation. In Williams’ study, women were more likely to give to the com-
munity or the arts, but neither of these causes had a significant impact on reputation.
Women were also less likely to give to education, which was the philanthropic activity
most strongly related to reputation. Therefore, it is possible that while females are
community influentials (Hillman et al., 2002) and may be associated with philanthropy
(Wang and Coffey, 1992; Williams, 2003), they tend to sponsor causes that are not
related to firm reputation.
A final explanation for the lack of relationship between gender diversity and reputa-
tion may be due to the perceived benefit of racial diversity on the board in a global
economy which may not be ascribed to gender diversity. We believe that because of the
importance of globalization in today’s business climate, analysts and executives may
place a higher value on racial/cultural diversity than gender diversity. As companies start
doing business in other countries/cultures, it is imperative to understand the local
environments to do well. Information gained from minority directors familiar with other
cultures may be seen as valuable (and hence provide that firm with more reputation)
while information gained from female directors may be seen as less valuable for this
business trend. This is consistent with Richard’s (2000) work which asserts that racial
diversity may be a way to increase the firm’s understanding of a diverse cultural base.
This is also consistent with Ibarra’s (1995) study which found that the perceived utility of
networks is stronger for minorities than women. For these reasons, board gender diver-
sity may not have a significant and positive relationship with reputation.
Contributions and Future Research

Theoretically, this study contributes to our understanding of the relationship between
board demographic diversity and firm performance in several ways. The study builds on
the behavioural theory of the firm (Cyert and March, 1963) and signalling theory to
assert that gender and racially diverse boards serve symbolic and instrumental roles for
the firm by employing their human and social capital. This study provides empirical
support for the positive relationship between both board racial and gender diversity and
innovation. This study also reveals and clarifies the innovation and reputation-building
effects of board racial diversity, extending previous work which shows the positive effect
of board diversity on firm performance.
This study has theoretical implications for the use of signalling theory and the behav-
ioural theory of the firm in corporate governance literature. Signals may become less
effective when they do not come from powerful individuals who chair committees,

individuals who sponsor causes related to reputation, or individuals who represent valued
global diversity.[3] In addition, this study may imply some contingencies to the behav-
ioural theory of the firm, suggesting that having diverse viewpoints represented on the
board of directors does not necessarily ensure better performance. The behavioural
theory of the firm maintains that the more extensive the search, or information-gathering
process, is for a given decision the better the decision the firm will make. The theory also
implies that having access to diverse information will lead to the inclusion of that
information in the decision-making process and that this will lead to better performance.
This theory is mostly supported based on our data. For example, both board gender and
racial diversity were positively related to innovation which suggests that diverse opinions
and information can translate into R&D expenditures.
While the focus of this study was to examine mediators, we also must note that no
direct relationship was found between board gender diversity and firm performance,
using Blau’s index or the proportion of women on the board as the measure of gender
diversity. In some post hoc tests, we found a positive and significant correlation between
the number of women on the board and firm performance. However, once we ran a
regression and took into account the many alternate explanations known to influence
firm performance (product diversification, industry, firm size, firm age, and liquidity), the
relationship between gender diversity and firm performance was no longer significant.
Therefore, the main effect between gender diversity and firm performance was positive
but not statistically significant in this sample. Previous literature on the relationship
between gender diversity and firm performance has been mixed with some finding a
positive, some a negative, and some no relationship at all (Bilimoria, 2006; Carter et al.,
2003; Dimovski and Brooks, 2006; Dwyer et al., 2003; Shrader et al., 1997). A recent
review on the methodology used to study diversity pointed out that some of the contra-
dictions that appear across studies in the diversity literature may be a result of the
operationalization of diversity (Harrison and Klein, 2007). However, in this study, we
did find that support for all hypotheses remained the same when using Blau’s index of
heterogeneity or proportions for gender and racial diversity.
In our case, we believe the inconsistent findings are possibly due to missing moderator
variables. In other words, the lack of a main effect between gender diversity and firm
performance does not necessarily mean that gender diversity does not help firms. There
may be something about the firm’s environment that is not set up to allow the firm to
achieve the benefits of a gender diverse board. This reasoning is consistent with recent
conclusions drawn by Dwyer et al. (2003, p. 1009) who state that ‘an appropriately
configured and supportive organizational environment may need to be in place before
the beneficial aspects of gender diversity can by fully realized’.
For example, the inconsistency in findings may be attributed to a missing moderator
which represents how much influence the female board members actually have on the
board. Having gender diverse groups represented on the board may not lead directly to
firm performance if the gender diverse individuals on the board are seen as tokens and
they do not have the power for their ideas to be adopted. It is well established in research
on group behaviour that in teams with mixed-status individuals, the higher status indi-
viduals speak more often and have more control and influence over the group processes
and discussions (Berger et al., 1972; Cleveland et al., 2000; Holtgraves, 1986). This may

be particularly problematic in situations where women have limited authority and power
in the group (as seems to be the case in our sample since women were less likely to be
chairpersons) since strategic actions are initiated by top leaders through coalescing of
powerful leaders (Clark and Soulsby, 2007). Thus, we believe it is possible that the
relationship between gender diversity and firm performance will not necessarily be
positive and significant under conditions where status differentials between decision-
makers either prevent women from being heard or keep their perspectives from being
influential. In addition, Combs et al. (2007) point out that many of the equivocal results
between board characteristics and firm performance are due to the missing moderator of
CEO power; therefore, this aspect of board–CEO power should be investigated. This
would be a boundary condition to the behavioural theory of the firm, and future research
should investigate what mechanisms can curtail the relationship between board gender
Empirically, this study makes several contributions to research on boards of directors.
First, through elucidating the benefits of racial and gender diversity on the board, this
study is significant to governance literature. It answers calls for research on the effects of
increases in women and minority directors (Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000; Burke, 2000).
Research on gender and racial diversity in corporate elite groups has been conducted less
often than diversity research among lower ranking employees, leaving many unanswered
questions about diversity at the top of organizations. This study contributes to our
understanding of these unanswered questions.
Second, to our knowledge, this study is the first to examine mediators of the board
diversity–firm performance relationship. Investigation of mediators in the board
demography–firm performance relationship is important to the progress of the field, and
thus this work takes a step towards clarifying anecdotal evidence about the benefits of
board racial and gender diversity. We propose innovation and reputation as mediators
of the board demographic diversity–firm performance relationship. Board gender and
racial diversity influence strategic human and social capital on the board, resulting in
more diverse ideas which influence innovation. In addition, racial diversity on the board
signals value and norm adherence, as well as philanthropy, which increase firm reputa-
tion. Thus, by investigating the underlying mechanisms between board demographic
diversity and firm performance, this study takes an important step towards understand-
ing the outcomes of board demographic diversity.
In addition to the theoretical and empirical contributions of this study, it also brings
new implications for practice. Many firms will be increasingly faced with the impact of
diversity in the boardroom as they look for the right directors. The selection process often
includes consideration of diversity in functional background and work experience. This
study shows that there may also be strategic business reasons to consider both racial and
gender demographic diversity in board selection decisions. Board demography affects
innovation and firm reputation, both of which are related to firm performance. Firms
can better use directors’ skills and resources when they recognize the benefits of diversity
and respect differences in information, relationships, and perspectives that emerge from
gender and racially diverse boards.
This study also has implications for future research. Although innovation and repu-
tation are measured, future research should investigate other mediating processes, such

as board members’ ability to provide strategic advice or financial resources to the firm.
Future research may also find proxies for social capital to be used as mediators in the
board diversity–firm performance relationship.
In addition, although the study recognizes and measures the benefits of board racial
and gender diversity on firm performance, it does not measure how the effects of diversity
may vary in different situations. For example, research has shown that racial minority
and female directors have more influence if they have network ties to majority directors
through common membership on other boards (Westphal and Milton, 2000). We must
also acknowledge that research on diverse team performance has been mixed. While
some studies find a positive relationship between team diversity and performance, other
studies show negative effects due to conflict, poor team integration, or a lack of cohesion
(Amason, 1996; Miller et al., 1998). It is well understood in teams research that diversity
in teams can lead to process losses (Steiner, 1972) stemming from conflict and commu-
nication problems. Indeed, several studies have linked both racial and gender team
diversity to conflict as well as problems with social integration and communication
( Jackson et al., 2003; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Although our findings show that the
effect of board member racial diversity on firm performance is positive, future work
should investigate whether board racial and gender diversity affect decision speed,
decision quality, and consensus on boards to gain a deeper understanding of these
underlying processes.
Furthermore, because gender and race are proxies for human and social capital, future
research may want to investigate how they influence nomination and selection to boards.
Future research should investigate whether board members value diversity and whether
these perceptions of value impact selection processes. Burke (1997) found that women
directors believe that the reason there are few women on boards is because boards
generally felt that women were either not qualified or they would only advance a women’s
agenda. Subsequent research has found that ingratiatory behaviours of minority directors
influence future appointments (Westphal and Stern, 2006, 2007) and that network ties are
important for minority appointments (Westphal and Milton, 2000). In addition, female
and minority directors tend to differ from majority directors in terms of their functional
backgrounds. Women and minority directors are more likely to have advanced degrees
and come from non-management backgrounds compared to other directors (Hillman
et al., 2002). Therefore, future research should investigate how race, gender, human
capital, and social capital interact to affect nomination and selection to boards.
Future research should also consider how committee membership influences the
dynamics of diverse boards. For example, membership in more influential committees
may afford some board members more voice into decision-making processes than others.
Committee membership could certainly enhance or diminish the effect that racial minor-
ity and female directors have on board decision-making. However, several researchers
have found that women directors are less likely to serve on powerful committees than
males (Peterson and Philpot, 2007; Zelechowski and Bilimoria, 2003). In addition,
Zelechowski and Bilimoria (2003) found that there were differences among firms in the
board experiences of women inside directors. While some felt supported and accepted,
others felt excluded. Future research should probe how these committee memberships
and experiences moderate participation in strategic decision making.

Our study has found results in the board diversity–firm performance relationship.
However, it has a number of limitations as well. First, because of the availability of board
data on ethnicity and the necessity to fill in missing values within our data source, only
Fortune 500 firms were explored, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Because
board diversity is correlated with firm size, there may be different relationships between
the constructs within other firms. Finally, while R&D intensity is commonly used as a
proxy for innovation, especially in cross-industry studies, it may not capture innovation
outcomes. Therefore, future single industry studies may use more fine-grained measures
of innovation, such as patents or product announcements. In addition, our data collec-
tion was limited to archival sources of data. Although we relied on the behavioural theory
of the firm to infer what the decision-making processes are like in diverse boards, we did
not actually collect any primary data from board members. Therefore, future research
may endeavour to collect primary sources of data which can reveal more about board
processes to explain how diverse boards make decisions.
This study takes an important step towards empirically investigating mediators of the
diversity–performance relationship. Consistent with calls to shed light on black box
processes (Lawrence, 1997), this study has investigated innovation (R&D intensity) and
reputation as mediators between board racial and gender diversity and firm perfor-
mance. This study enriches our understanding of how board racial and gender diversity
are related to firm performance, innovation and reputation. Our findings are generally
consistent with past research suggesting that board racial and gender diversity should be
positively related to innovation, reputation and firm performance (Burke, 2000; Erhardt
et al., 2003; Milliken and Martins, 1996). The results suggest that further research
investigating the intervening effects of demographically diverse directors on firm perfor-
mance should be fruitful.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank Ron Burke, S. Trevis Certo, Orlando Richard, and anonymous reviewers for their review
of this manuscript.
NOTES
[1] These reports include: the Committee of 100’s Asian Pacific American Corporate Board Report Card,
the Executive Leadership Council’s Census of African Americans on Boards of Directors, and the
Hispanic Business Boardroom Elite Directory.
[2] While our measure of gender diversity is not significantly correlated with firm performance, we do find
a significant and positive correlation between the number of women on the board and firm performance.
This supports previous studies, which find a significant Pearson r correlation between the number of
women on the board and firm performance (e.g. Bilimoria, 2006; Burke, 2000).
[3] We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us and stating it so clearly.
REFERENCES
Albinger, H. S. and Freeman, S. J. (2000). ‘Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer
to different job seeking populations’. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 243–53.
Alliance for Board Diversity (2005). Launch of Alliance for Board Diversity Calls for Fair Representation on Corporate
Boards. Available at: http://www.catalyst.org/press-release/117/alliance-for-board-diversity-fact-sheet
(accessed 3 March 2008).

Amason, A. C. (1996). ‘Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–48.
Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A. and Smith, K. G. (2000). ‘The paradox of success: an archival and a laboratory
study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change’. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
837–53.
Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A. and Heiner, K. (2002). ‘Exploring the relationship between corporate social
performance and employer attractiveness’. Business & Society, 41, 292–318.
Balkin, D. B., Markman, G. D. and Gomez-Mejía, L. R. (2000). ‘Is CEO pay in high-technology firms
related to innovation?’. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1118–29.
Bantel, K. A. and Jackson, S. E. (1989). ‘Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition
of the top team make a difference?’. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–24.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–82.
Baysinger, B. and Hoskisson, R. E. (1989). ‘Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct
firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 310–32.
Baysinger, B. and Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). ‘The composition of boards of directors and strategic control:
effects on corporate strategy’. Academy of Management Review, 15, 72–87.
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D. and Turk, T. A. (1991). ‘Effects of board and ownership structure on
corporate R&D strategy’. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 205–14.
Bazerman, M. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1983). ‘A limited rationality model of interlocking directorates’.
Academy of Management Review, 8, 206–17.
Beatty, R. P. and Ritter, J. R. (1986). ‘Investment banking, reputation and the underpricing of initial public
offerings’. Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 213–32.
Beekes, W., Pope, P. and Young, S. (2004). ‘The link between earnings timeliness, earnings conservatism and
board composition: evidence from the UK’. Corporate Governance, 12, 47–59.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. R. and Zelditch, M. (1972). ‘Status characteristics and social interaction’. American
Sociological Review, 37, 241–55.
Bilimoria, D. (2000). ‘Building the business case for women corporate directors’. In Burke, R. J. and Mattis,
M. C. (Eds), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic, 25–40.
Bilimoria, D. (2006). ‘The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers’.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 47–61.
Bilimoria, D. and Wheeler, J. V. (2000). ‘Women corporate directors: current research and future direc-
tions’. In Burke, R. J. and Mattis, M. C. (Eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues. London:
Sage, 138–63.
Black, E., Carnes, T. and Richardson, V. (2000). ‘The market value of corporate reputation’. Corporate
Reputation Review, 1, 31–42.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Boyd, B. K. (1995). ‘CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model’. Strategic Management Journal,
16, 301–12.
Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005). ‘Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis’.
Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 29–44.
Brancato, C. K. (1999). ‘Study suggests that more diversified boards can strengthen corporations’. Corporate
Governance Advisor, 7, 14–7.
Brown, B. and Perry, S. (1994). ‘Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s “most admired”
companies’. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1347–59.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Economic Surveys. Data and Reports. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Burke, R. J. (1997). ‘Women on corporate boards of directors: a needed resource’. Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 909–15.
Burke, R. J. (2000). ‘Women on Canadian corporate boards of directors: still a long way to go’. In Burke,
R. J. and Mattis, M. C. (Eds), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 97–110.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). ‘The contingent value of social capital’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–65.
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J. and Simpson, W. G. (2003). ‘Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm
value’. The Financial Review, 38, 33–53.

Carter, S. M. (2006). ‘The interaction of top management group, stakeholder, and situational factors on
certain corporate reputation management activities’. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1145–76.
Catalyst (2006a). 2005 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
Catalyst (2006b). 2006 Catalyst Member Benchmarking Report. New York: Catalyst.
Catalyst (2008). 2007 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
Caves, B. E. and Ghemawat, P. (1992). ‘Identifying mobility barriers’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 1–12.
Certo, S. T. (2003). ‘Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: signaling with board struc-
tures’. Academy of Management Review, 28, 432–46.
Certo, S. T., Covin, J. G., Daily, C. M. and Dalton, D. R. (2001). ‘Wealth and the effects of founder
management among IPO-stage new ventures’. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 641–58.
Certo, S. T., Daily, C. M. and Dalton, D. R. (2001). ‘Signaling firm value through board structure: an
investigation of initial public offerings’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26, 33–50.
Chatterjee, S., Harrison, J. S. and Bergh, D. D. (2003). ‘Failed takeover attempts, corporate governance and
refocusing’. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 87–96.
Chen, G., Liu, C. and Tjosvold, D. (2005). ‘Conflict management for effective top management teams and
innovation in China’. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 277–300.
Clark, E. and Soulsby, A. (2007). ‘Understanding top management and organizational change through
demographic and processual analysis’. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 932–54.
Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M. and Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender
Issues at Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coffey, B. S. and Wang, J. (1998). ‘Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social
performance’. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1595–603.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
95–120.
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., Perryman, A. A. and Donahue, M. S. (2007). ‘The moderating effect of CEO
power on the board composition–firm performance relationship’. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
1299–323.
Cox, T. (1996). ‘Cultural diversity in organizations: intergroup conflict’. In Ott, J. S. (Ed.), Classic Readings in
Organizational Behavior. Belmont: Wadsworth, 13, 263–73.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A. and McLeod, P. L. (1991). ‘Effects of ethnic group cultural differences
on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task’. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827–47.
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1984). ‘Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and
organization design’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.
Daily, C. M. and Dalton, D. R. (2003). ‘Women in the boardroom: a business imperative’. Journal of Business
Strategy, 24, 8–9.
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T. and Dalton, D. R. (2000). ‘International experience in the executive suite: the path
to prosperity?’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 515–23.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R. and Cannella, A. A. (2003). ‘Corporate governance: decades of dialogue and
data’. Academy of Management Review, 28, 371–82.
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E. and Johnson, J. L. (1998). ‘Meta-analytic review of board
composition, leadership structure, and financial performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–90.
Dalton, D. R., Dalton, C. M. and Certo, S. T. (2006). Women and Boards of Directors After Sarbanes–Oxley:
Participation, Position, and Promise. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Manage-
ment, Atlanta, GA.
Deephouse, D. L. and Carter, S. M. (2005). ‘An examination of differences between organizational legiti-
macy and organizational reputation’. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329–60.
Deutsch, Y. (2005). ‘The impact of board composition on firms’ critical decisions: a meta-analytic review’.
Journal of Management, 31, 424–44.
Deutsch, Y. and Ross, T. W. (2003). ‘You are known by the directors you keep: reputable directors as a
signaling mechanism for young firms’. Management Science, 49, 1003–17.
Dimovski, W. and Brooks, R. (2006). ‘The gender composition of boards after an IPO’. Corporate Governance,
6, 11–7.
Dowling, G. (2006). ‘Reputation risk: it is the board’s ultimate responsibility’. Journal of Business Strategy, 27,
59–68.
Dwyer, S., Richard, O. C. and Chadwick, K. (2003). ‘Gender diversity in management and firm perfor-
mance: the influence of growth orientation and organizational culture’. Journal of Business Research, 56,
1009–19.

Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D. and Shrader, C. B. (2003). ‘Board of director diversity and firm financial
performance’. Corporate Governance, 11, 102–11.
Executive Leadership Council (2006). Implications and Recommendations of the 2004 Census of African-Americans on
Boards of Directors. Available at: http://www.elcinfo.com/downloads/docs/2004_Census.pdf (accessed
13 March 2008).
Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. (1983). ‘Separation of ownership and control’. Journal of Law and Economics,
26, 301–25.
Ferrier, W. J. (1997). ‘ “Tough talk” and market leaders: the role of overt signaling and reputation-building
behaviors in sustaining industry dominance’. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 98–103.
Filatotchev, I. and Bishop, K. (2002). ‘Board composition, share ownership, and “underpricing” of U.K.
IPO firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 941–55.
Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Fombrun, C. (2004). ‘Corporate reputations as economic assets’. In Hitt, M. A., Freeman, R. E. and
Harrison, J. S. (Eds), Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford: Blackwell, 289–312.
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990). ‘What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy’.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–58.
Fondas, N. (2000). ‘Women on boards of directors: gender bias or power threat?’. In Burke, R. J. and Mattis,
M. C. (Eds), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic, 171–8.
Forbes, D. P. and Milliken, F. J. (1999). ‘Cognition and corporate governance: understanding board of
directors as strategic decision-making groups’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489–505.
Franko, L. G. (1989). ‘Global corporate competition: who’s winning, who’s losing, and the R&D factor as
one reason why’. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 449–74.
Fryxell, G. E. and Lerner, L. D. (1989). ‘Contrasting corporate profiles: women and minority representation
in top management positions’. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 341–52.
Gabrielsson, J. and Huse, M. (2004). ‘Context, behavior, and evolution’. International Studies of Management and
Organizations, 34, 11–36.
Giscombe, K. and Mattis, M. (2002). ‘Leveling the playing field for women of color in corporate manage-
ment’. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 103–19.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B. and Cardy, R. L. (2007). Managing Human Resources, 5th edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). ‘The strength of weak ties’. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–80.
Graves, S. B. (1988). ‘Institutional ownership and corporate R&D in the computer industry’. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 417–28.
Gregory, J. R. (1998). ‘Does corporate reputation provide a cushion to companies facing market volatility?
Some supportive evidence’. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 288–90.
Hall, R. (1993). ‘A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities’. Strategic Management Journal, 14,
607–19.
Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984). ‘Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers’. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
Hansen, G. S. and Hill, C. W. L. (1991). ‘Are institutional investors myopic? A time-series study of four
technology-driven industries’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 1–16.
Harrison, D. A. and Klein, K. J. (2007). ‘What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety,
and disparity in organization’. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–228.
Harrison, D. A. and Sin, H.-P. (2006). ‘What is diversity and how should it be measured?’. In Konrad,
A. M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J. K. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage, 191–216.
Heeley, M. B., King, D. R. and Covin, J. G. (2006). ‘Effects of firm R&D investment and environment on
acquisition likelihood’. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1513–35.
Helfat, C. E., Harris, D. and Wolfson, P. J. (2006). ‘The pipeline to the top: women and men in the top
executive ranks of US corporations’. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 42–64.
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D. and Hambrick, D. C. (2006). ‘How quickly do CEOs become obsolete?
Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 447–
60.
Henke, J. (1983). ‘Involving boards of directors in strategic planning’. Journal of Business Strategy, 7, 87–95.
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., van Riel, C. B. M. and van den Bosch, F. A. J. (2004). ‘Reputation management
capabilities as decision rules’. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1349–77.
Hill, C. W. L. and Jones, T. M. (1992). ‘Stakeholder-agency theory’. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131–54.

Hill, C. W. L. and Snell, S. A. (1988). ‘External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in
research-intensive industries’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577–90.
Hillman, A. and Dalziel, T. (2003). ‘Board of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and
resource dependence perspectives’. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–96.
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A. and Paetzold, R. L. (2000). ‘The resource dependence role of corporate
directors: strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change’. Journal of
Management Studies, 37, 235–55.
Hillman, A., Cannella, A. A. and Harris, I. (2002). ‘Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: how do
they differ?’. Journal of Management, 28, 747–63.
Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, G. and Palia, D. (1999). ‘Understanding the determinants of managerial
ownership and the link between ownership and performance’. Journal of Financial Economics, 53, 353–84.
Hirsch, P. M. and Andrews, J. A. Y. (1984). ‘Administrators’ response to performance and value challenges:
stance, symbols, and behavior’. In Sergiovanni, T. J. and Corbally, J. E. (Eds), Leadership and Organiza-
tional Culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 170–85.
Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility (2007). Despite Hispanic Community’s Growing Economic Clout,
Hispanics Remain Absent from Corporate Boardrooms. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.hacr.org/
mediacenter/pubID.237/pub_detail.asp (accessed 13 March 2009).
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A. and Moesel, D. D. (1996). ‘The market for corporate control
and firm innovation’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084–119.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E. and Kim, H. (1997). ‘International diversification: effects on innovation and
firm performance in product-diversified firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 767–99.
Hoel, M. (2004). The Nordic 500: Women Board Directors and Executive Directors. Oslo: Center for Corporate
Diversity.
Hoffman, L. (1959). ‘Homogeneity and member personality and its effect on group problem solving’. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27–32.
Hoffman, L. and Maier, N. (1961). ‘Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homoge-
neous and heterogeneous groups’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401–7.
Holtgraves, T. (1986). ‘Language structure in social interaction: perceptions of direct and indirect speech
acts and interactants who use them’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305–14.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A. and Grossman, W. (2002). ‘Conflicting voices: the effects of
institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies’.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 697–716.
Ibarra, H. (1992). ‘Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an
advertising firm’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–47.
Ibarra, H. (1993). ‘Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework’.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 56–87.
Ibarra, H. (1995). ‘Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks’. Academy of
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N. L. (2003). ‘Recent research on team and organizational diversity:
SWOT analysis and implications’. Journal of Management, 29, 801–30.
Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M. and Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). ‘Board of directors: a review and research agenda’.
Journal of Management, 22, 409–38.
Judd, C. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1981). ‘Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations’.
Evaluation Review, 5, 602–19.
Kesner, I. F. (1987). ‘Director’s stock ownership and organizational performance: an investigation of
Fortune 500 companies’. Journal of Management, 13, 499–508.
Kesner, I. F. (1988). ‘Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: an investigation of type,
occupation, tenure, and gender’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 66–84.
Knight, R. F. and Pretty, D. J. (1999). ‘Corporate catastrophes, stock returns, and trading volume’. Corporate
Reputation Review, 2, 363–80.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R. J., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D. and Thomas,
D. (2003). ‘The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the diversity research network’.
Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21.
Lane, P. J., Cannella, A. A. and Lubatkin, M. H. (1998). ‘Agency problems as antecedents to unrelated
mergers and diversification: Amihud and Lev reconsidered’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 555–78.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). ‘The black box of organizational demography’. Organization Science, 8, 1–22.
Lawrence, T. B. (1998). ‘Examining resources in an occupational community: reputation in Canadian
forensic accounting’. Human Relations, 51, 1103–31.

Mahon, J. F. (2002). ‘Corporate reputation: a research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature’.
Business and Society, 41, 415–45.
Markides, C. C. and Williamson, P. J. (1994). ‘Related diversification, core competencies and corporate
performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 149–65.
Mattis, M. C. (2000). ‘Women corporate directors in the United States’. In Burke, R. J. and Mattis, M. C.
(Eds), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic, 43–56.
McGuire, J. B., Schneeweis, T. and Branch, B. (1990). ‘Perceptions of firm quality: a cause or result of firm
performance’. Journal of Management, 16, 167–80.
Melcher, R. (1996). ‘The best and worst boards’. Business Week, November, 82–9.
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M. and Glick, W. H. (1998). ‘Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives:
implications for strategic decision processes’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 39–58.
Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). ‘Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects
of diversity in organizational groups’. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–33.
Milliken, F. J. and Vollrath, D. (1991). ‘Strategic decision-making tasks and group effectiveness: insights from
theory and research on small groups’. Human Relations, 44, 1229–53.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Theoret, A. (1976). ‘The structure of “unstructured” decision processes’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–74.
Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). ‘What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on
interlocking directories’. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–98.
Morbey, G. K. (1988). ‘R&D: its relationship to company performance’. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 5, 191–200.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
O’Brien, J. P. (2003). ‘The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation’. Strategic
Opler, T. C., Pinkowitz, L., Stulz, R. and Williamson, R. (1999). ‘The determinants and implications of
corporate cash holdings’. Journal of Financial Economics, 52, 3–46.
O’Reilly, C. A. (1983). ‘The use of information in organizational decision making: a model and some
propositions’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–40.
Pakes, A. and Schankerman, M. (1984). ‘The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the
private rate of return to research resources’. In Pakes, A. and Griliches, Z. (Eds), R&D, Patents, and
Productivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 315–38.
Parker, L. D. (2007). ‘Boardroom strategizing in professional associations: processual and institutional
perspectives’. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1454–80.
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press.
Pearce, J. A. and Zahra, S. A. (1992). ‘Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective’. Journal
of Management Studies, 29, 411–38.
Peterson, C. A. and Philpot, J. (2007). ‘Women’s roles on U.S. Fortune 500 boards: director expertise and
committee memberships’. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 177–96.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependency Perspective. New
York: Harper & Row.
Rechner, P. L. and Dalton, D. R. (1991). ‘CEO duality and organizational performance: a longitudinal
analysis’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 155–60.
Richard, O. (2000). ‘Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance’. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 164–77.
Rindova, V. P. (1999). ‘What corporate boards have to do with strategy: a cognitive perspective’. Journal of
Management Studies, 36, 953–75.
Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002). ‘Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial perfor-
mance’. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077–93.
Robertson, M., Swan, J. and Newell, S. (1996). ‘The role of networks in the diffusion of technological
innovation’. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 333–59.
Robinson, G. and Dechant, K. (1997). ‘Building a business case for diversity’. Academy of Management Executive,
11, 21–31.
Rodan, S. and Galunic, C. (2004). ‘More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences
managerial performance and innovativeness’. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 541–62.
Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. and Keller, P. (2006). ‘Board characteristics and involvement in the strategic decision
making: evidence from Swiss companies’. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1201–26.

Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B. and Iles, P. (1997). ‘Women in management and firm financial perfor-
mance: an exploratory study’. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 355–73.
Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. (2003). ‘The 2002 female FTSE index and women directors’. Women in
Management Review, 18, 349–58.
Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. (2004). ‘Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and
theoretical explanations’. Corporate Governance, 12, 479–88.
Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. (2006). Women on Boards of Directors: Utilising Knowledge and Public Concern to
Develop Intervention Strategies and initiate Global action for Gender Equity at Board Level. Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S. and Vinnicombe, S. (2008). ‘Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: how do
women and men differ?’. European Management Journal, 26, 48–58.
Spence, M. (1973). ‘Job market signaling’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–74.
Stanwick, P. A. and Stanwick, S. D. (1998). ‘The determinants of corporate social performance: an empirical
examination’. American Business Review, 16, 86–93.
Staw, B. M. and Epstein, L. D. (2000). ‘What bandwagons bring: effects of popular management techniques
on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–56.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stiles, P. (2001). ‘The impact of the board on strategy: an empirical examination’. Journal of Management
Studies, 38, 627–50.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’. Strategic
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. and O’Reilly, C. A. III (1992). ‘Being different: relational demography and organiza-
tional attachment’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–79.
Turban, D. B. and Greening, D. W. (1997). ‘Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness
to prospective employees’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–763.
van der Walt, N. and Ingley, C. (2003). ‘Board dynamics and the influence of professional background,
gender and racial diversity of directors’. Corporate Governance, 11, 218–34.
Waddock, S. (2000). ‘The multiple bottom lines of corporate citizenship: social investing, reputation, and
responsibility audits’. Business and Society Review, 105, 323–45.
Wang, J. and Coffey, B. S. (1992). ‘Board composition and corporate philanthropy’. Journal of Business Ethics,
11, 771–8.
Westphal, J. D. and Milton, L. P. (2000). ‘How experience and network ties affect the influence of
demographic minorities on corporate boards’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–98.
Westphal, J. D. and Stern, I. (2006). ‘The other pathway to the boardroom: how interpersonal influence
behavior can substitute for elite credentials and demographic majority status in gaining access to board
appointments’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 169–204.
Westphal, J. D. and Stern, I. (2007). ‘Flattery will get you everywhere: how ingratiation, boardroom
behavior, and demographic minority status affect the likelihood of gaining additional board appoint-
ments in U.S. companies’. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 267–88.
Williams, K. Y. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). ‘Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years
of research’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Williams, R. J. (2003). ‘Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philan-
thropy’. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 1–10.
Williams, R. J. and Barrett, J. D. (2000). ‘Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: is
there a link?’. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 341–50.
Woo, C. Y. and Willard, G. (1983). Performance Presentation in Business Policy Research: Discussion and Recommen-
dation. Presented at the Academy of Management conference, Dallas, Texas.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). ‘Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of
industry’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1713–35.
Zahra, S. A. and Garvis, D. M. (2000). ‘International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: the
moderating effect of international environmental hostility’. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 469–92.
Zelechowski, D. D. and Bilimoria, D. (2001). Women Corporate Inside Directors: Tokens at the Top. Unpublished
manuscript, Cleveland, OH.
Zelechowski, D. D. and Bilimoria, D. (2003). ‘The experience of women corporate inside directors on the
boards of Fortune 1000 firms’. Women in Management Review, 18, 376–81.
Zelechowski, D. D. and Bilimoria, D. (2004). ‘Characteristics of women and men corporate inside directors
in the U.S.’. Corporate Governance, 12, 337–42.

Demographic Diversity in The Boardroom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demographic Diversity in The Boardroom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management Studies 46:5 July 2009

Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom: Mediators

Toyah Miller and María del Carmen Triana

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

GOVERNANCE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

BOARD DIVERSITY AND INNOVATION

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Hypothesis 1a: Board gender diversity is positively related to firm innovation.

Hypothesis 1b: Board racial diversity is positively related to firm innovation.

BOARD DIVERSITY AND FIRM REPUTATION

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Hypothesis 2a: Board gender diversity is positively related to firm reputation.

Hypothesis 2b: Board racial diversity is positively related to firm reputation.

MEDIATION OF THE BOARD DIVERSITY–FIRM PERFORMANCE

In addition, reputation is an important mediator in understanding how women and

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Innovation. Because we investigate the effects of board diversity on firm innovation,

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Table I. Means, standard deviations, and pairwise correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Model 1 Model 2A Model 2B Model 3A Model 3B

Product diversification -0.006 -0.006 -0.006 -0.005 -0.005

Notes: Unstandardized coefficients. Two-tailed tests reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Variables Firm reputation

Model 4 Model 5A Model 5B Model 6A Model 6B

Product diversification 0.063 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.074

Notes: Unstandardized coefficients. Two-tailed tests reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Variables Firm performance

Model 7 Model 8A Model 8B Model 9A Model 9B Model 10A Model 10B

Product diversification 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.064 0.065 0.074 0.075

Notes: Unstandardized coefficients. Two-tailed tests reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Variables Firm performance

Model 11 Model 12A Model 12B Model 13A Model 13B

Product diversification 0.027 0.035 0.036 0.026 0.026

Notes: Unstandardized coefficients. Two-tailed tests reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

cent of the variance explained in reputation, with a number of studies reporting R2

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

Contributions and Future Research

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009